Yes hybrids do appear to be gaining some momentum beyond simply gimick status. You can thank SS1 for that. At the time so called experts said that the rocket wouldn't produce sufficient ISP to make it to space. Glad they were proved wrong.

I remember reading something similar about the Dream Chaser concept but now I don't think anyone's laughing quite so loud. I don't doubt there'll be challenges to be solved but the technology seems relatively simple when compared to liquid fueled rockets and also a damn sight safer generally.

Yes hybrids do appear to be gaining some momentum beyond simply gimick status. You can thank SS1 for that. At the time so called experts said that the rocket wouldn't produce sufficient ISP to make it to space. Glad they were proved wrong.

I remember reading something similar about the Dream Chaser concept but now I don't think anyone's laughing quite so loud. I don't doubt there'll be challenges to be solved but the technology seems relatively simple when compared to liquid fueled rockets and also a damn sight safer generally.

Hybrids are certainly interesting and have their place, but don't get taken in by the 'hybrid hype' that ignores their downside.

Like solid rockets, the casing of the solid part of a hybrid is the combustion chamber, and has to resist the high pressure and temperature that a much smaller liquid chamber would. This makes hybrids heavier.

Unlike solids, hybrids have a propellant tank, feed lines and valves etc, making them heavier & more complex.

Refueling a hybrid is more complicated & expensive than either liquid or solids.

Yes in some ways they combine the best of both solid & liquids, but they also combine the worst.

Rutan went hybrid because he wanted incremental testing, and abort capability, but didn't want to deal with extra plumbing, hard starts, dual propellant dump, etc. it was the right choice for him, but the performance penalties may make it the wrong choice for orbital.

Last edited by WannabeSpaceCadet on Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I would like to think that NASA would give the money to one of the runners up to at least get 2 vehicles under construction but I think it more likely that it will just disappear into their coffers to fund short falls elsewhere in their budget.

What you think to be more likely might be the chance for t/Space also - the COTS-finds for RpK may be moved over to the next COTS-competition in 2010.

And this might mean that the COTS-money might be increased them - according to what's done in the tether-competition for the Space Elevator. In that competition the money not won last year will be added on on the prize money already set for this year - the prize money is cumulated this way.

That might be done in the COTS-competition also if RpK fails. And in that case there would be sufficient money for t/Space because they need less additional private funds (from Branson or others).

SpaceCadet: that's what I want to find out: can hybrids work out for orbital launch? SpaceDev is betting heavily that they can. How does the density-ISP come out for hybrids, if you know of the top of your head?

_________________"The rockets are burning, the dreamers are at full swing/ And you know in your heart that the farsighted see better things." ~ "Farsighted" by Five Iron Frenzy

What you think to be more likely might be the chance for t/Space also - the COTS-finds for RpK may be moved over to the next COTS-competition in 2010.

I think a few things counted against T-Space, the most important I believe is that it is a collection of companies working together with no real lead (a project lead by committee is not a good idea). Even RpK leads the project so that if someone leaves (like orbital) then it has other alternatives (Andrews), with T-Space anyone leaving the group would leave a hole much more difficult to fill as the partners are providing more specialist knowledge. Would people have the same confidence if Scaled, for example, dropped out due to their other commitments.

Ekkehard Augustin wrote:

And this might mean that the COTS-money might be increased them - according to what's done in the tether-competition for the Space Elevator. In that competition the money not won last year will be added on on the prize money already set for this year - the prize money is cumulated this way.

I think that NASA might make that decision, but whether the money will actually be available by the time 2010 arrives is debatable because NASA might be even more pressed for cash by then. Besides if SpaceX is performing well then they might not see the need to create a rival, why have another competition if the first has already produced what you want?

Ekkehard Augustin wrote:

That might be done in the COTS-competition also if RpK fails. And in that case there would be sufficient money for t/Space because they need less additional private funds (from Branson or others).

I'm not sure what the actual terms are with regard to private financing but if the bidder is expected to put up a percentage of the investment themselves then I cant see any extra money being used to reduce that percentage. And I would rather see it spent on additional contracts rather than reducing the commitment for a few.

Besides SpaceX might complain that it was able to meet the financial obligation so why shouldn't others and NASA would effectively be giving more help to potential rivals. Suppose Boeing, for example, puts a bid in for the 2010 competition would it be fair given their resources that NASA give them more financial help than SpaceX? Boeing might well consider doing this if Lockheed get most of the upcoming NASA contracts for VSE.

I think ultimately a good design that is well managed should attract the finance it needs, RpK's lack of private funding indicates (at least to me) that it has significant issues. Not least of which is the fact that it has spent a shed load of money and not really achieved anything yet.

_________________A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

it's a pity that not more is known about the limits congress decisions, laws, acts and bills set to NASA. These might force NASA to conduct the second competition as well as to bar it against the participation of Boeing etc. who weren't bidding for COTS.

More weight will have the circumstance that NASA said publicly that there will be a second COTS-competition. This might bind or force them to conduct it really.

Regarding t/Space there is no problem. They have a CEO and it is a real consortium that has an organization and is formed by a contract. A consortium in principle is nothing else than a company but the business of that company is jsut one projet or one product. In Germany often consortiums are founded - even by large or huge companies like Deutsche Bank and/or Siemens. The purpose of consortiums often is a business that would be too large for one of the partners alone.

The partners are bound together by what's called "Konventionalstrafe", "Vertragsstrafe" etc. in German. These punishments consist of large or huge amounts of money to be paid if a contract like that to form a consortium is hurt. The amount is kept close to the sum of losses caused by hurting the contract.

And there are courts forcing the partners to be true. The lawsuits mostly are going fast.

"I've probably right now gambled about as much on commercial space as I'm going to be allowed to do until somebody makes it look like it was a good idea," he said.

This may mean that NASA would like to invest more money in COTS but are waiting for some results first. Possibly when SpaceX gets to orbit it will give Griffen some extra leverage to put more money into the programme (that assumes that he can get it from congress or from elsewhere within the NASA budget of course).

_________________A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Regarding t/Space there is no problem. They have a CEO and it is a real consortium that has an organization and is formed by a contract. A consortium in principle is nothing else than a company but the business of that company is jsut one projet or one product. In Germany often consortiums are founded - even by large or huge companies like Deutsche Bank and/or Siemens. The purpose of consortiums often is a business that would be too large for one of the partners alone.

The partners are bound together by what's called "Konventionalstrafe", "Vertragsstrafe" etc. in German. These punishments consist of large or huge amounts of money to be paid if a contract like that to form a consortium is hurt. The amount is kept close to the sum of losses caused by hurting the contract.

And there are courts forcing the partners to be true. The lawsuits mostly are going fast.

Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)

Ekkehard,

Do you have ay inside information as to the comtents of the Partnering agreements signed by the consotium members, when T-Space was formed?

sorry, but no, I have no inside informations - in particular due to the large distance between Germany and the US. What I said under the jurisprudential aspect is knowledge my university diploma required and got by reading, watching, news about companies, infrastructure projects of meaning for the public and the like.

But there is some evidence about t/Space as one concrete instance of a consortium: Simply have a look to Wikipedia about "Consortium":

Quote:

A consortium is formed by contract, which delineates the rights and obligations of each member.

I don't agree completely to what is said in the second quote but prefer the german Wikipedia-site regarding that because there explicitly is said that in the contract it is determined which partners has to work on which detail of the project and which way interfaces have to be handled. The german site refers to german laws which is a constraint to it validity regarding the US.

The point of interest regarding t/Space in this all now is that the contract determines who has to work on what - this indeed is documented by t/Space under www.transformspace.com/index.cfm?fuseac ... 20Partners . There not only the partners are listed but to each parner the information is added on which detail he has to work - what his responsibility within the consortium is. t/Space cannot list this if it wouldn't be contracted as listed since this public list makes the public includng the politicians to consider the partners to have really thos responsibilities.

Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)

PS: By the way - I sent an email to t/Space but the subject had nothing to do with the agreements.

OK so the Lunar Lander Challenge purse remains intact despite a valiant effort by the Armadillo Team who were really chasing the clock to make it at all given the short development time and the FAA approval process so kudos to them

It would appear from recent postings that there are 3 contenders now in the race for this prize:

1. Armadillo - who it must be admitted has the inside lead so far due to actually flying hardware.
2. Marsten - who has demonstrated a working engine, a vehicle (could be a good mockup or the real thing) but nothing actually flying.
3. Micro-Space - who have demonstrated sounding rockets and engines but nothing like what is being required for the prize.

Well that said, two questions now arise:
1. Are there other competitors out there, and
2. When is there likely to be another contest?

IIRC, rspeck said in his official team forum that he thinks he has the stuff to make an attempt. I don't know whether you saw that or not. It may be that he has demonstrated it satisfactorily to himself but not disclosed it. He doesn't seem to keep his site updated.

Where would other competitors come from? Do we know about all major aerospace companies in existence in the US, or might there be some 'flying under the radar' somewhere that could compete? This seems unlikely to me. Nobody wants to fly under the radar, b/c publicity is usually a good thing for funding. So if we are to see more competitors, it would have to be from among the ranks we are currently aware of. It would need to be a team with most likely significant development experience in liquid engines, and probably some RCS and flight control hardware. I wonder if XCOR would fall into that category?

_________________"The rockets are burning, the dreamers are at full swing/ And you know in your heart that the farsighted see better things." ~ "Farsighted" by Five Iron Frenzy

The reason I asked wether you had inside information about the partnering agreements of the T-Space consortium, was that T-Space was formed considerably before COTS was announced. My IMPRESSION was that the members were trying to get contracts to showcase the CXV vehicle and more specifically the ability to air launch a CXV class vehicle. (T-Space did actually get a contract and did a drop test of a mock=up from Proteus, if I remember correctly.)

I was thinking that at that point, there could have been any number of escape clauses built into the partnering agreements, placing limits on their participation.